Guilty of starving boy Christina Thomas could get 30 years in prison

DOVER — After a three-week trial, a Strafford County Superior Court jury found Christina Thomas guilty of intentionally starving a young boy for several years.

Thomas, 34, of New Durham, was taken into custody without bail after she was found guilty of first-degree assault, an enhanced charge that carries a maximum sentence of 10 to 30 years in prison, according to Deputy County Attorney Alysia Cassotis.

The jury reached a unanimous verdict after deliberations that lasted just more than two hours.

The jury ruled Thomas “knowingly” caused serious bodily injury to the young child who was under her care by depriving him of nutrition between 2006 and 2010, causing the boy's failure to thrive.

The boy, now 9 years old, is the son of Thomas' friend from her teenage years. The boy weighed 23 pounds when he was 6½ years old, according to witness testimony throughout the trial. The boy is now in an open adoptive relationship with his biological mother, a woman with a developmental disability who was also reportedly abused by Thomas.

Thomas' family members who were sitting in the courtroom on Friday began crying and sobbing after the guilty verdict was read around 3:45 p.m. Friday.

“It was an emotional case for them, and for everybody, on both sides,” said Cassotis.

After the jury foreman read the verdict aloud, each of the 12 jury members was asked their finding in the case. One by one, each jury member said: “Guilty.”

Thomas, who has been out on personal recognizance bail throughout the trial, was handcuffed immediately after Judge John Lewis revoked her bail. She looked at her family members as she was being escorted out of the courtroom by two officers of the Strafford County Sheriff's Office. One family member was heard saying, “I love you” to Thomas.

After testimony by final witnesses, as well as closing arguments on Friday, the jury found Thomas guilty at the highest level of intention. The jury ruled that Thomas committed the assault “knowingly,” meaning she knew her actions would result in the child's failure to thrive. Had the jury not found Thomas of knowingly committing the assault, they could have convicted her of committing the crime “recklessly.”

According to the Strafford County Attorney's Office, Thomas's first-degree felony assault charge was enhanced because the victim was a child; therefore, the charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 to 30 years in prison, as opposed to the 7½- to 15-year maximum sentence typically applied to Class A felony convictions.

Bail for Thomas was revoked after Cassotis argued Thomas had previously expressed intent to possibly leave the state with one of her children. She said several witnesses in the trial have also expressed fear of retaliation by Thomas or her family members. Cassotis also mentioned the crime of witness tampering may also have occurred during the trial proceedings.

On the issue of bail, Thomas's defense attorney Steven Keable argued that Thomas has always appeared at court hearings and that she is not a flight risk, but Judge Lewis revoked Thomas' bail, saying, “I am quite disturbed in regard to what happened to the child.”

During the trial, staff of the New Durham School testified they were told by Thomas to take away some of the boy's food as a form of punishment.

Witnesses, including the boy's biological mother, testified Thomas also withheld food from the boy if he complained about being hungry or was getting emotional.

Witnesses also testified seeing the boy kept in a dog kennel at the New Durham home, or tied by a dog leash to his bunk bed, as a form of punishment.

Cassotis said that sentencing for Thomas will likely happen in the next 60 days. Before sentencing, the Department of Corrections will conduct a presentencing investigation (PSI), in which a neutral department member, likely a probation or parole officer, will collect information from prosecution and defense, with potential interviews, and make a recommendation on Thomas' sentence, said County Attorney Thomas Velardi. That way, the judge will have both perspectives on the case in deciding her sentence.

During closing arguments on Friday, Keable said Thomas' actions were negligent, rather than knowing or reckless, because she wasn't aware that her actions would put the child's health at risk. He argued the medical community never told Thomas the child was not getting enough food.

He said while Thomas attempted to solve the boy's alleged food intolerance, which was made apparent through his vomiting, “Nobody was giving her answers.”

Thomas, he said, was occupied with finding various recipes for foods the boy could tolerate, such as food involving tofu.

Keable also argued Thomas was not the only caretaker for the young boy, and that, “This was a child under care of many different adults” in the Thomas household.

“You've heard testimony from a variety of people that he was being fed,” said Keable.

The defense attorney also questioned the credibility of some of the witnesses on the prosecution's behalf, and asked the jury to consider potential biases they might have against Thomas.

During the prosecution's closing arguments, Cassotis said six people testified seeing atrocities being committed at Thomas' home against the boy, and that it was unlikely all of them were “out to get” Thomas. She noted that some even considered Thomas to be a friend, and felt obligated to lie on her behalf.

“No child should ever have to suffer the inhumanity (the victim) suffered at Christina Thomas' home,” she said.

Pointing to Thomas' intention to commit the assault, Cassotis said Thomas was disgusted by the victim's tendency to ruminate — a condition in which a person vomits into the mouth. She said Thomas was under the impression the young boy was ruminating on purpose, and that she found it “disgusting,” so she deprived him of food.

“Christina (Thomas) got to a point where she really despised him,” said Cassotis.

The deputy county attorney also pointed to Thomas missing multiple doctor's appointments for the young victim, including a time when she waited for two years to bring the child in for an emergency follow-up appointment.

“She wants everyone to believe she's been crying for help this whole time (to help the boy with food intolerance issues) but that is not the case,” said Cassotis. “We know if nothing else, Christina (Thomas) is a good actress.”

Cassotis also argued that almost all of the witnesses on the defense's behalf would be significantly affected by the verdict.

She said two of Thomas' children who took stand this week testified that their mother did nothing wrong. Thomas's 17-year-old son, Jacob Thomas, could not recall details when asked about events that would hurt his mother's case, Cassotis pointed out.

Cassotis also noted that Thomas's 10-year-old child — who had previously told Division of Children, Youth, and Families that the children were hit with paddles in the Thomas household — was not able to testify Thursday because the child happened to be out of state that day.

According to Cassotis, Thomas also has other pending charges, alleging she committed offenses against the biological mother of the boy she starved. Thomas is facing a felony-level criminal threatening charge, for allegedly threatening the boy's mother with a knife, as well as misdemeanor-level simple assault charges.

Cassotis said there is also a pending investigation in connection to events that occurred during the three-week trial.

Thomas' mother, Peggy Starr, is also scheduled to go to trial in April in connection with the case. She is facing a felony assault charge against the boy.

After Thomas was found guilty and taken into custody, Starr was told to sit next to Keable at the defense table. Velardi said she was reportedly using her cell phone to take pictures of the jury, and her phone was confiscated for review. After some time, Cassotis entered the courtroom and reported that no pictures of the jury were found on Starr's cell phone.